And Saddam is an honest man...

[headscratcher4]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/britain_iraq_saddam

Saddam denies links to AlQaida...

Now, as I have said on othe threads, I am not convinced by Bush regarding U.S. policy. But I do have a question for folks, like myself, who are "skeptical" of the US and it's motives. I know that the US Governmetn has had occasional trouble with truth (Tokin Gulf incident, for example) and it might not be above manipulation of facts to make its case against Iraq to the world.

HOWEVER...what about Saddam and the Iraqi government would EVER lead anyone to believe they've ever told a truth in public? Why be so concerned that US policy is a dodge for something else, doubt US pronouncements and produced facts, yet give anything this man says any credence whatsoever?

How can the UN possibly accept anything that Iraq says or does? The US is "responsible" for the death of Iraqi children, when Saddam (now one of the richest men in the world) builds palaces for $100 of millions of dollars. And, on and on...

bottom line is, in US (even under Bush) the truth will out, and some may argue is already out to the extent that Bush hasn't made his case...in Iraq, the truth was raped and murdered and burried in a secret grave long ago...

Ok, done ranting now...for the moment...

[Bluegill]

Very good points, I think. I'd say it's the job of reasonable people everywhere (that's where we skeptics fit in!) not to take people at their word, but rather to ask for--or demand--evidence.

I demand a substantial body of evidence before I am willing to support a war against Saddam (whether we've reached that level of evidence is another point, and is being discussed on numerous other threads, so I won't get into it here.) I also would not take anything Saddam says at face value--I'd demand evidence to back it up.

In light of Saddam's past pattern of lying, and my beliefs about my own government's relative openness, I'm willing to put a lot more trust in the U.S. But that trust does not translate into a blank check.

How many people, I wonder, really do believe what Saddam says? And how many does Saddam THINK he has believing him? When he issues a pronouncement, regardless of whether or not it's true, do you think he says to himself, "why bother?"

[shanek]

The only thing that matters in this question is if there is any direct evidence that there are any links to Al-Quaeda. As has been repeatedly said, it is very difficult if not impossible to prove a negative.

We're seeing the same effect with the weapons inspections. They haven't found the first piece of evidence for NBC weapons, but this is brushed off as not being proof that there aren't weapons somewhere else. Sorry; it doesn't work that way. If you want to prove that Saddam has NBC weapons, you have to produce the weapons.

[headscratcher4]

In light of Saddam's past pattern of lying, and my beliefs about my own government's relative openness, I'm willing to put a lot more trust in the U.S. But that trust does not translate into a blank check.

This is what I wanted to say, only more clearly. Thanks.

[subgenius]

The link to terrorists and hiding weapons are different, of course.
Posted in a different thread, and still waiting for it to hit the fan:

Well this could prove interesting:
Saddam's bodyguard warns of secret arsenal

02feb03

SADDAM Hussein's senior bodyguard has fled with details of Iraq's secret arsenal.

His revelations have supported US President George W. Bush's claim there is enough evidence from UN inspectors to justify going to war.
Abu Hamdi Mahmoud has provided Israeli intelligence with a list of sites that the inspectors have not visited.

They include:

AN underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad;

A SCUD assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea;

TWO underground bunkers in Iraq's Western Desert. These contain biological weapons.

William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, said Mahmoud's information is "the smoking gun".

"Once the inspectors go to where Mahmoud has pointed them, then it's all over for Saddam," Tierney said.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220%5E663,00.html
(Edited to fix link)

__________________

[Roadtoad]

This latest report scares me silly. My son is already there.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by shanek
The only thing that matters in this question is if there is any direct evidence that there are any links to Al-Quaeda. As has been repeatedly said, it is very difficult if not impossible to prove a negative.

We're seeing the same effect with the weapons inspections. They haven't found the first piece of evidence for NBC weapons, but this is brushed off as not being proof that there aren't weapons somewhere else. Sorry; it doesn't work that way. If you want to prove that Saddam has NBC weapons, you have to produce the weapons.

I think I remember learning from Sister Margaret Regina, in my parochial grade school English class, that two negatives equal a positive. "There aren't no weapons of mass destruction" = "There are weapons of mass destruction."

It follows that if Saddam denies having them, and the inspectors can't find them, they must be there! Same with links to Al Qaeda.

Sister Margaret Regina...my gateway to logic.

[Reginald]

When he says that the latest referrendum in Iraq backed him up 100% (man, woman, child, kurds etc) I believe him, I also believe that he has no prohibited weapons. I also believe that he dosn't want a war. I am inclined to belive that hes a real nice guy and would give me a big wet kiss if I were to meet him, And for that last reason alone I am going to Iraq to chain myself to a "Baby food Factory" and lay down my life as a human shield.:rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by subgenius
"Once the inspectors go to where Mahmoud has pointed them, then it's all over for Saddam," Tierney said.

Okay, so let's get the inspectors there and see what they find.

[DanishDynamite]

Saddam is a ruthless dictator whose demise would be good news. However, since the Gulf War, I have yet to hear him threaten to invade a neighbouring country, or seen evidence why he is a threat to the US or Europe.

[Reginald]

Absolutely right, helicopters should be moving people there to look with any luck (I suspect they wont be though)

Well the article is propagating through the user groups like wild fire, Ive even seen it reproduced in part on a Welsh newspaper site, but still no cofirmation from the bigger agencies.

:confused:

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=137452003

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/02/04022003172309.asp

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30836

Edited to include links

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Saddam is a ruthless dictator whose demise would be good news. However, since the Gulf War, I have yet to hear him threaten to invade a neighbouring country, or seen evidence why he is a threat to the US or Europe.

Not to mention the fact that whoever replaces him likely won't be any better.